The question of measures to combat the impending catastrophe leads us to illuminate another of supreme importance: on the connection between internal and external policy, or in other words: on the relationship between war of conquest, imperialist war, and war of revolution, proletarian war, between war that is criminally predatory and war that is justly democratic.

All the measures to combat catastrophe described by us would extremely strengthen, as we have already noted, the defensive capacity or, speaking differently, the military power of the country. This on one hand. But on the other hand, these measures cannot be put into practice without transforming war of conquest into war of justice, war conducted by capitalists in the interests of capitalists, into war conducted by the proletariat in the interests of all the laboring and exploited masses.

Indeed. The nationalization of banks and syndicates, in connection with the abolition of commercial secrecy and workers' control over capitalists, would mean not only a gigantic saving of the people's labor, the possibility to economize forces and means, it would also mean an improvement in the situation of the laboring masses of the population, the majority of it. In modern war, as everyone knows, economic organization is decisive. Russia has enough grain, coal, oil, iron – in this respect our position is better than that of any of the warring European countries. And in the struggle against ruin by the indicated means, drawing upon the self-activity of the masses, improving their situation, introducing the nationalization of banks and syndicates, Russia would utilize its revolution and its democratism to raise the entire country to an immeasurably higher level of economic organization.

If instead of "coalition" with the bourgeoisie, which obstructs all measures of control and sabotages production, the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks had accomplished in April the transition of power to the Soviets and directed their forces not to playing "ministerial leapfrog," not to bureaucratic lounging, alongside the Cadets, in the offices of ministers, assistant ministers and so forth and so forth, but to guiding the workers and peasants in their control over capitalists, in their war against capitalists, – then Russia would now be a country in complete economic transformation, with land in the hands of the peasants, with the nationalization of banks, that is, would be to that extent (and these are extremely important economic foundations of modern life) above all the remaining capitalist countries.

Defensive capacity, military power of the country with the nationalization of banks is higher than that of the country with banks remaining in private hands. Military power of a peasant country, with land in the hands of peasant committees, is higher than that of a country with landlord landownership.

They constantly invoke the heroic patriotism and miracles of military valor of the French in 1792–1793. But they forget the material, historical-economic conditions which alone made these miracles possible. Truly revolutionary reckoning with moribund feudalism, the transition of the entire country, and moreover with speed, decisiveness, energy, and selfless devotion truly revolutionary-democratic in character, to a higher mode of production, to free peasant landownership – these are the material, economic conditions which with "miraculous" speed saved France, regenerating and renewing its economic foundation.

The example of France tells us one and only one thing: in order to make Russia defensible, in order to achieve in it too "miracles" of mass heroism, one must with "Jacobin" ruthlessness sweep away all the old and renew, regenerate Russia economically. And this cannot be done in the twentieth century by the mere sweeping away of tsarism (France a hundred twenty-five years ago did not limit itself to this). This cannot be done even by merely revolutionary destruction of landlord landownership (we have not even done this, since the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks betrayed the peasantry!), by merely transferring the land to the peasantry. For we live in the twentieth century, domination over the land without domination over the banks is not in a position to bring regeneration, renewal into the life of the people.

The material, productive renewal of France at the end of the eighteenth century was connected with the political and spiritual, with the dictatorship of revolutionary democracy and the revolutionary proletariat (from which democracy was not separated and which was still almost merged with it), – with ruthless war declared against all that is reactionary. All the people and especially the masses, that is, the oppressed classes, were seized by boundless revolutionary enthusiasm; everyone considered the war just, defensive, and it was in fact such. Revolutionary France was defending itself against reactionary-monarchist Europe. Not in 1792–1793, but many years later, after the victory of reaction within the country, the counter-revolutionary dictatorship of Napoleon transformed the wars on the part of France from defensive into wars of conquest.

But in Russia? We continue to conduct an imperialist war, in the interests of capitalists, in alliance with imperialists, in accordance with the secret treaties which the Tsar concluded with the capitalists of England and others, promising in these treaties to Russian capitalists the plundering of foreign countries, Constantinople, Lvov, Armenia and so forth.

War remains unjust, reactionary, predatory on the part of Russia, so long as she has not offered a just peace and has not broken with imperialism. The social character of war, its true significance is determined not by where the enemy forces stand (as the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks think, descending to the vulgarity of the ignorant muzhik). This character is determined by what policy the war continues ("war is the continuation of policy"), what class for what purposes conducts the war.

One cannot lead the masses to a predatory war on the basis of secret treaties and expect their enthusiasm. The vanguard class of revolutionary Russia, the proletariat, understands with ever greater clarity the criminality of the war, and the bourgeoisie not only has been unable to dissuade the masses of this, but on the contrary, the consciousness of the criminality of the war grows. The proletariat of both capitals has become definitively internationalist in Russia!

How can one speak of mass enthusiasm for war in such circumstances!

One thing is inextricably bound to another, internal policy to external. One cannot make a country defensible without the greatest heroism of the people, boldly and decisively carrying out great economic transformations. And one cannot awaken heroism in the masses without breaking with imperialism, without offering all peoples a democratic peace, without transforming war in this way from predatory, predatory, criminal into just, defensive, revolutionary.

Only selflessly consistent rupture with capitalists both in internal and external policy is capable of saving our revolution and our country, clamped in the iron vise of imperialism.